Archive for drilling moratorium
Drilling moratorium lifted, but is this too soon?
Posted by: | CommentsThe decision last week for the US to lift its moratorium on oil and gas drilling in the deeper waters of the Gulf of Mexico has left many analysts on opposing sides of this change. The Obama administration did keep the original timelines in place for the moratorium but skeptics feel that it has been lifted too soon and was done for political reasons just before the midterm congressional elections. While I’m not qualified to deduce just how much safer the industry has been made following the BP disaster earlier in the year, I do wonder if six months provides enough time to compose both a full and proper analysis and then implement any new changes that such an analysis would dictate. The director of the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management made a statement that doesn’t really offer a full endorsement in one direction or the other:
“There has been significant progress over the last few months in enhancing the safety of future drilling operations, and in addressing some of the weaknesses in spill containment and oil spill response. More needs to be done, but we believe the risks of deepwater drilling have been reduced sufficiently to allow drilling under existing and new regulations.”
I find myself hinging on two parts of the statement above. If “more needs to be done” why would we be returning to business as usual when it comes to offshore drilling? Why would the ‘more’ that needs to be done not take precedence if the risks still exist? Also, if more needs to be done how can the statement that ‘the risks of deepwater drilling have been reduced sufficiently’ be made? Surely ‘sufficiently’ also means enough, if the risks have been reduced ‘enough’ then it doesn’t make sense that more would need to be done. The reality is most probably a compromise has been made between making some improvements versus making all necessary improvements. The potential for a future disaster has probably been reduced to a certain degree but not eliminated.
Naturally there is an argument that says deep-sea drilling is inherently a dangerous business. The question remains as to whether another spill with the potential for loss of marine and human life, plus the environmental devastation that goes with it is just a risk we have to accept? Reading between the lines the answer is yes we do (not that I feel we should) but the risk has been reduced to a certain extent. I’m not a professional gambler but if this were roulette it’s as if the double zero has been taken off of the wheel and we’re told not to worry about the single zero that remains as the ball never lands there. Of course my lack of expertise in offshore drilling knowledge results in that being an oversimplification but I would challenge a government official or oil executive to disagree with the fundamental facts that short of slowing the industry down for six months the environmental risks remain completely in play.
On the other side of the equation oil industry executives are proclaiming that the far more demanding regulations from the Interior Department will result in far fewer permits being issued and a resultant reduction in new drilling projects. In an obtuse justification for meeting demand (or making money?) the executives are in essence complaining about regulations that they were part of creating and which safeguard the industry from which they profit. The point being debated is that new permits are far too difficult to acquire, whereas before the BP event permits were given out far too easily. I can’t help feeling that the issue should more closely mirror what happened in the North Sea after the Piper Alpha disaster in the 1980s. The focus at that time was to deeply study the existing oil rigs for safety rather than make it almost impossible to begin new drilling. That seems to make more sense as the existing rigs in theory at least pose a greater risk.
Reluctantly I’m realistic enough to know that offshore drilling will continue although I feel it should end. If it must continue it must be in everybody’s best interest to delay the process to a point where the risk is mathematically as low as possible, not just ‘significantly lower’. Anything less than that will almost certainly result in a future disaster potentially thousands of feet below the ocean surface once again.
Tags: BP Oil Disaster, Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, dangers of oil drilling, drilling moratorium, drilling permits, gulf of mexico, marine life damage, offshore drilling, offshore oil drilling, oil industry safety, planet forwardAs BP crisis continues, will drilling moratorium be passed?
Posted by: | CommentsOver two months later it appears that the BP oil disaster in the Gulf of Mexico may be entering a new phase, a phase that hopefully will result in the most success to date in capping the tragic flow of oil into the ocean. While the situation remains precarious and the clean up task still looms large the future of oil shore drilling remains in the balance. Public opinion at present would suggest that some type of changes are desperately needed, whether this will result in a temporary moratorium on deep-water drilling remains to be seen. The Obama administration are anxiously seeking another opportunity to have a legal precedent restrict deep-water drilling after failing on two recent attempts. The hope is that revised evidence that stresses safety concerns coupled with some subtle rewording may result in a temporary freeze allowing the industry to be properly evaluated and changed as needed.
While the legal wranglings look set to continue the current situation continues to worsen by the day. Meanwhile the proponents and opponents of the case are split along the lines you might anticipate; industry experts proclaiming the demands to be unreasonable and too radical while environmental groups applaud the moves and call them long overdue.
The department of the interior have renewed optimism that the case will be supported as new evidence about how the industry can not manage a deep-water blowout and subsequent oil spill is growing in real time as the BP situation continues to develop. One of the very few bright spots with the current disaster is that it may help cement the belief that spill response capacity is not suitable and add gravity to the request to suspend such operations. The initial case wanted to restrict any rigs drilling at a depth of greater than 500 feet while the newest revision seeks to review any free floating drilling rigs. As the landscape keeps changing so does the scope of the proposed restrictions. The industry of course is fearful that the reaction may be overcompensating for the current event, but can your really overcompensate for the worst US environmental disaster in history? That hardly seems possible.
In the meantime the difficult dance between energy/economic needs seeks to be offset by creating a blueprint for a process that better protects the environment. Its almost as if this courtroom drama is scheduled to become a large and very publicized metaphor for the entire ebb and flow of the environmental movement. It’s a theme I find myself returning to -objectors say the costs are too high in a fiscal sense, while activists say there is no greater cost than the result of doing nothing. This is one battle that apathy must not win – the dismay of millions who have watched the escalating tragedy in the Gulf of Mexico must not return to what they were doing before. The easy protest vote seems to be ‘boycott BP’ but the fundamental problems run so much deeper. This is not just an issue with BP – this is an issue with safety and planning, reward versus risk. It’s an issue in which we each hold vested interest.
Tags: BP, BP Oil Disaster, BP Oil Spill, drilling moratorium, gulf of mexico oil leak, impact of drilling disaster, moratorium on drilling, off shore drilling, planet forward
